GR L 20791; (May, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20791 May 19, 1965
MANUEL F. AQUINO and FELIX PIRANTE, petitioners, vs. THE HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte Fifth Br. and MARCIANO S. DU, City Attorney, Ormoc City, respondents.
FACTS
On January 25, 1962, an information for grave coercion was filed by the City Attorney of Ormoc City against petitioner Manuel F. Aquino (later amended to include petitioner Felix Pirante) before the City Court of Ormoc City (Criminal Case No. 5640). The City Court exercised its concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte under Section 87(c) of Republic Act 296, as amended. On July 21, 1962, the City Court found the petitioners guilty of light coercion and sentenced them to pay a fine and damages. On October 18, 1962, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, noting that no stenographic notes were taken during the trial as there was no stenographer. The clerk of court, instead of transmitting the records to the Court of Appeals, forwarded them to the CFI of Leyte. The City Attorney then filed a new information for the same crime of grave coercion before the CFI, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1415-O. The petitioners filed a motion to quash this information, arguing that the CFI had no appellate jurisdiction because their appeal was directed to the Court of Appeals. The respondent Judge denied the motion to quash. The petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner Aquino pleaded not guilty in the CFI and then manifested his intention to file the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Does the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch V, have jurisdiction to try and decide Criminal Case No. 1415-O?
2. Was the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed in accordance with the Rules of Court?
RULING
1. Yes, the Court of First Instance of Leyte has jurisdiction to try Criminal Case No. 1415-O. The City Court of Ormoc City had concurrent jurisdiction with the CFI to try the original case under Section 87(c) of RA 296, as amended. However, the law requires that proceedings in such cases “shall be recorded.” It was admitted that no stenographic notes were taken during the trial. Therefore, the proceedings in the City Court were not conducted in accordance with law and were null and void. Consequently, the decision of the City Court was not appealable directly to the Court of Appeals, as there was no record for review. The clerk of court thus properly forwarded the records to the CFI. The new information filed by the City Attorney in the CFI initiated a new criminal case, and the CFI took cognizance of it in the exercise of its original, not appellate, jurisdiction.
2. No, the petition for certiorari and prohibition was not filed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the CFI order denying their motion to quash before resorting to the Supreme Court. This failure to exhaust the adequate remedy available in the lower court is a fatal procedural defect, warranting denial of the petition.
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is denied, and the preliminary injunction issued is dissolved. Costs against the petitioners.